Can We Pass the Test? – Malaysia Bolleh

 Four years after being turfing out its ruling party-in-perpetuity, Malaysia did the unthinkable – it sent its former Prime Minister, Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak to prison on charges of corruption. Mr. Najib, had until that point been regarded as something of an untouchable figure, even though he looted and abused power on a scale that Malaysia had never seen before (this included US$700 million in his personal account). More can be found at:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62685413

 

 As a Singaporean, it can be tempting to get smug about all these things going on in Malaysia. Singapore’s successive governments have taken pride in not being anything like their Malaysian counterparts. Sure, our Prime Minister remains the world’s best paid, despite a pay cut but nobody has found anything unexplainable in his personal bank account.

The difference in official corruption in Singapore and Malaysia can be seen most visibly at the street level. Your papers need to be in order whenever you enter Singapore. If you must pay a traffic fine in Singapore, you pay it because offering the cop a little extra is a guaranteed way to jail. Malaysia is, to politely, vastly different in this respect. I remember crossing the Causeway with my mother-in-law and being told to “give something to my officer,” by Malaysian immigration.

It is easy to get smug when you compare the levels of government corruption between the two countries. However, while Singapore may score higher than Malaysia according to Transparency International, Malaysia has passed two crucial test, which Singapore has not.

The first test came in the 2018 General Election, when the “Barisan Nasional” (BN) ruling coalition was thrown out of power for the first time in history. It was by all accounts an amazing election that was not just politically significant but culturally so. Malaysia has a political culture based along ethnic divisions, yet Malaysians united along racial lines and voted to get rid of a government that had become so corrupt that it made people’s lives miserable.

Sure, the opposition coalition that won that election has not been remarkably better and Bumiputra policies remain. However, the Malaysian electorate displayed a maturity of being able to unite across ethnic lines despite what the best efforts of politicians. Not only does this contrast with Singapore, which is officially “non-racial,” but accepts talk about the public not being ready to be led by someone from an ethnic minority, but it also compares well with the mature democracies of the West, which have seen a rise in ethnic nationalism.

The second test comes with the High Court upholding Mr. Najib’s jail term. Malaysia’s judiciary has shown that it has a certain level of independence to punish a kleptocratic former Prime Minister. While Mr. Najib may no longer be Prime Minister and have control of levers of the state, Mr. Najib does have a following and a lot of influence. Talking about Mr. Najib as being “untouchable” was not an exaggeration. We also need to remember that this is a region where “corrupt” leaders are not necessarily disgraced and pushed to spend their latter years under the radar – the Philippines has just put the son of a man that robbed and rapped the country back in the presidency. Malaysia is in the region where such things can happen.

Still, the Malaysian Supreme Court was not bowed and sent Mr. Najib to where he belongs and the message became clear, nobody including a very influential Prime Minister is above the law.

In a way, this sets a good example for the ASEAN region (if you discount Singapore as an anomaly). Having an electorate that can unite across ethnic lines despite the best efforts of politicians and a judiciary that can move against those with power and influence shows that nations in this part of the world are capable of building stable societies where people can prosper. This would be a week to say “Malaysia Bolleh.”  

The Problem with Magic Circles

 

At the start of the month, our Ambassador-At-Large, Professor Tommy Koh caused a bit of a stir among the chattering classes when he stated that he believed that Singaporeans were a snobbish lot who look down on the poor. More on Professor Koh’s remarks can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/listen/heart-matter/singapore-snobbish-tommy-koh-says-confronting-societys-flaws-needed-new-social-compact-2875886

 

 On the face of things, it appears that Professor Koh is being a tad unfair to Singapore and Singaporeans. Snobbishness is not unique to Singapore and there may be a case for saying that if Singaporeans are snobbish, it is because we are a product of snobbish cultures (British, Chinese, and Indian). Then there was actually a valid point raised by the Artful Arse Kisser in his Facebook rebuke of Professor Koh, which is the fact that there are certain jobs in the world that are not and will never be well paid and overworked – waitering comes to mind.

However, while Snobbishness is not unique to Singapore, Professor Koh was right to raise the topic of snobbishness and if you look at the abundance of everyday examples, you might say that “snobbish” is too light a word to describe things and the issue here is not so much whether the rich look down on the poor but the fact that if you look at the main issues facing Singapore today, you will inevitably find that its not a case of there being winners and losers but a case of only a few being allowed to live.

As with most things in Singapore, it stems from something good taken to an extreme that it became not so good. From the moment we got booted out of the Malaysian Federation in 1965, our first Prime Minister became a man with a mission to show the world that Singapore with no size, resources, or anything else to speak off would be a “winner” in every sense of the word. It was drilled into every Singaporean kid that you had do whatever it took to climb the top at school, get into the best universities in the world and become a superstar for a multinational or in the government.

Nothing wrong with wanting to win. The people who want to win usually do. However, it has reached a point where the winners have now changed the game to prevent anyone from entering the game. While wanting to win is perfectly understandable, it is not a birth right or the reward for passing exams. A winner is only winner because he or she has withstood competition. In boxing, there is Mohammed Ali, who is called “The Greatest.” He didn’t get this because he had the best win-lose record. He got it because had had great battles against equally capable opponents like Joe Frazier and most notably George Foreman, who was younger, fitter and considerably stronger.

The mentality that winning is a birth right or for greater accuracy in the Singapore context “exam right” has created a host of magical circles, where money and respect from status comes easily. The formula is simple – pass the exam, get into a magic circle and stay there. You will meet and breed with your own kind and in a way, you get isolated from the laws of nature.

Think of our ruling party, which has been there from day one of Independent Singapore. The party has been there for so long that it doe not see itself from being different from the government. Nobody bats an eyelid when the ruling party talk about “Majulah PAP,” which is adapted from our national anthem of “Majulah Singapura.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UTeD0IlKEc

This obsession with the magic circle is not limited to the ruling party. Anyone who has dealt with Singapore’s media duopoly will realise that this mentality goes down the line. The ruling party talks about Singapore being “Too small to support a two-party system,” and its businesses (particularly the media ones) used to talk about the market being “too small for competition.”

Professional bodies have become gatekeepers of the “exam right” mentality and entrance into magic circles.  Professionalising means making people take more exams. Twenty years ago, property and insurance agents needed to take a single exam to get a license. These days its at least five or six exams for the right to earn a commission income. While there’s an argument that this was supposed to weed out the crooks, the reality is that it has limited entry into the profession and ensured that passing exams has become more important that serving customers. In law and accountancy, the regulatory bodies create ways to ensure that magic circle means magic in rewarding the circle rather than solving problems. “This can be seen in the perpetuation of that most glorious incentive for sloth – time costs and time sheets. Believe it or not, when I was once ticked off for saying I had no issue with receiving part payment based on success. Professionals are not people paid to solve a problem because they know more about a topic. They are encouraged to ensure those problems become more complicated (how else will they get paid).

Our system of magic circles needs a support system. However, the people in the magic circle are so obsessed with being in the magic circle and making entry into the magic circle difficult so that their egos are never bruised, that instead of seeing the support system as being a means of keeping the magic circle magical, it seen as an inconvenience to be acquired on the cheap.

Everyone wants to be in the magic circle. Nobody wants to be the support world, which explains why the people in the support system inevitably come from places where ill treatment and low pay in Singapore is considered a golden ticket to a better life – which makes the possibility of being in the support system that much scarier for people in magic circles.

I realised this when I dipped my toe into the support system when I joined the Bistrot. I needed money and the Bistort stabilised my income. However, I noticed people in Singapore’s magic circles, had a problem with me. They couldn’t understand how someone who was obviously from magic circle land would be seen in support system land.

To me, the logic of bad paying job better than no job was obvious. However, I know people who got booted out of magic circles and found more dignity in begging friend for a drink than in stepping a few toes into the support system. Never quite understood how this worked until someone explained that when you can no longer afford to be in a magic circle, your world collapses and everyone deserts you. So, not being seen in the support system means that you might have a chance of getting back into the magic circle.

Magic circles can be very comforting but there is something fundamentally wrong when our need to be in a magic circle prevents us seeing a world beyond that. Take the following story as an example:

https://mustsharenews.com/father-role-model/

 

Why do such stories make the news? Are we at the stage where the support system has become so frightening that we run away from it? That should not be the case. If you are an educated person with a functioning body, you should be able to survive beyond a magic circle. You should be proud of parents who worked in the support system to put you in the magic circle. If your kids feel ashamed that you don’t have the markings of someone in the magic circle, you should question the way you raised your kids.

Magic circles are comfortable, but they are bad for you. If we are to be a long lasting prosperous society, we will need to disrupt the world of magic circles.

“Who I f***k and who I don't f**k is none of your f**king business!” – Jack Baker from the Fabulous Baker Boys

 

One of the scariest things about the 377A debate is that it often reveals a national obsession with a**holes. If you scroll through enough forums, you will notice a strange belief that has been placed in the national psyche, which is a belief that there is an evil conspiracy by the West to make Singapore decay by allowing gay people to have sex.

Whenever I read these comments, I am inevitably reminded of one of the greatest lines in cinematic history, which was “Who I f**k and who I don’t f**k is none of your f**king business,” which came from the movie “The Fabulous Baker Boys,” staring Bo and Jeff Bridges alongside Michelle Pfeiffer.

 

Copyright – Entertainment Weekly

Our obsession with what other people get up to in the privacy of the bedroom has become hysterical and it would be funny if we did not have serious social issues that need to be addressed. OK, I get that not everyone is going to be comfortable with the very idea of two guys in a relationship. However, while that idea might not be the most comfortable to entertain, there is no reason why two consenting adults should be considered criminal in the eyes of the law (despite the government’s promise not to enforce it). At the same time, the homosexual community needs to understand that things are not going to change overnight and making people comfortable with your choices is going to get you further than antagonizing them.

So, now that the most useless and pointless of laws is going to be repealed, its time for the us to move on. The homosexual community should celebrate a small victory and then move onto the next battle, which is to get the rest of society ready to accept that homosexual unions need legal protections, which was a point that was ironically raised on social media by Ms. Stephanie Thio, joint-managing partner of TSMP Law.

On the other hand, our “religious” community needs to understand that their faith’s require them to be so much more than the police of other people’s bedroom activities. If you take the Christian Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) for example, you will notice that Jesus was more interested in feeding the poor and healing the sick than who f**ed who. Jesus was not the only great teacher obsessed with relieving suffering. In Islam, there is a belief that God does not intend poverty for people and Muslims are obliged to donate towards the less fortunate.

Much as the government may not want to admit it, we have a growing underclass and there are plenty of people that have fallen through the cracks of our glorious system. Thanks to Covid, we have migrant workers who do our back breaking work in return for the right to live in places where we would not step into unless we were in a hazmat suite. You have employers who take pride in not paying such workers.  

If you want to limit the scope to born and bred Singaporeans, look at the plight of many of our elderly, who make up an unhealthy portion of the homeless and hungry. Go into any fast-food joint and you will inevitably see an elderly person doing the heavy lifting because, well they need something to pay for their old age.

Sure, our number of horribly poor may be less than many other places but you consider the fact that we are one of the “richest” nations on a per capita basis, there is no reason why our own people, from the hardest working generation, digging through trash cans to survive.

There are enough horror stories of how many of these people ended up that way because the kids they helped make into success stories screwed them. I don’t know about you but each one of these horror stories shows that there was a decay in values somewhere along the line and like or not, this was happening in Singapore long before the government entertained the idea of repealing 377A.

This is where our religious organisations need to step up. They have “moral” authority, financial means, and a network to get things done. Think about someone like Professor Thio Li-Ann, who is by all accounts a brilliant scholar of laws. Can you imagine if someone of her capabilities focused on making the law protect us when we are at our most vulnerable (in our old age) instead of worrying about everyone’s a***hole being poked. Think of Joseph Prince of New Creation Church, who is clearly very gifted when it comes to raising money (I believe his record is $21 million in 24 hours) to build bigger and better facilities for his church and ensuring that the homeless have shelter.

Think about how much better we would be if the people who claimed to speak for God focused a little less on who was f***who and the plight of those who were being f**ed by the system. This was what Jesus was focused on and we need to return to this basic when it comes to those who claim to be close speak for the Almighty.

Finally, We Learn the Difference between a Sin and a Crime

 

It has taken a while, but the Prime Minister has finally stated that Singapore’s most pointless law, Section 377A, the section that criminalises anal sex between consenting adult men, will finally be removed. At the same time, the government moved to ensure that the constitution would say state that marriage is defined as the heterosexual variety. So, after years of lobbying by the likes of decent minded people like Siew Kum Hong, Remy Choo, Eugene Thuraisingam and M. Ravi, the Adam and Steve couples in Singapore can be rest easily knowing that the law no longer makes them criminals for doing what everyone else does (be with the ones they love). However, for the “Adam and Steve” couples, they will have to accept that the law will not recognise their union as anything more than that of two men choosing to live together.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-govt-will-repeal-section-377a-decriminalise-sex-between-men

 

 As with every government announcement, this was anticlimactic in as much as there was a very loud discussion about repealing the act long before the announcement was made. Events had moved to a level where there was no longer a rational and intelligent argument for keeping the law. India and Taiwan repealed their version of the law, thus eliminating the argument that Singapore was a conservative society where the majority disapproved of the law (there is no way Singapore can argue that it is more conservative than India or Taiwan). The public health argument was demolished by the fact that section 377 was repealed (Yes, anal sex in unhealthy but why do we allow heterosexuals to have it but not homosexuals). Those who wanted to retain the law could not provide a shred of scientific evidence that show that allowing two consenting adults to have sex in the privacy of their bedroom would somehow lead to the decay of the family. When people brought up the fact that just about every religious text disapproves of homosexuality, Professor Tommy Koh made the point that just because something is a sin it does not mean that it must be a crime (religious text condemn gambling, which is legal and even encouraged).

The most prominent argument for abolishing the law was the fact that in 2007, the government agreed to pacify the “religious” elements by keeping it but not promising the homosexual community (the law is very specific that it targets homosexuals rather than lesbians) that it would not be actively enforced. Why have a law that you do not intend to enforce?

If you ask the question of “who does this law protect” and “how does it protect” you would find that the only people who might be protected by this law would be repressed homosexuals who have been conditioned to look upon their own sexual urges as evil and needed the weight of the law to stop them from acting naturally.

Funnily enough, the biggest sign of how things were going to change was from a Linkedin post from Ms. Stephanie Yuen Thio, Joint Managing-Partner of TSMP Law. It was a rational and compassionate post, which hit on the key social issues regarding the homosexual community in Singapore.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanie-yuen-thio-06b184/recent-activity/shares/

 

 This is surprising because Ms. Thio not only belongs to one of the prominent families in our legal fraternity (both her Mother and Sister-in-Law are Professors of Law), she belongs to the family that has appointed itself the protector of Singapore’s sexuality (I avoid the term religious wellbeing because the Thio family is deathly silent on topics that Jesus was interested in – namely the wealth gap, homeless, treatment of migrants and other “low-life” characters).

Ms. Stephanie Thio should be commended for her thoughtfulness and the next discussion on the rights of the homosexual community should be based on the points raised by Ms. Thio. The homosexual community will have to accept that change will not come overnight but they must press on. They need to understand that the religious community has sensibilities that need to be respected. Getting aggressive will only be met with an aggressive push back.

The religious community on the other hand needs to respect boundaries and focus its attention on social ills that their faiths worked to cure. Their energies need to be focused on things like alleviating poverty and increasing opportunity in a Singapore that is increasingly becoming a challenging place for those who get left behind.

Ms. Stephanie Thio’s post has shown that we can have rational debates and its time that we put our energies and ideas towards solving real social issues rather than trying to dictate who other consenting adults sleep with.

Critically Snobbish

 Around eight days ago, our Ambassador-at-Large, Professor Tommy Koh gave a speech in which he described Singaporeans as being “snobbish” for looking down on the poor. Professor Koh argued that Singapore overpays its “brain” workers and underpays its “hand” workers. The report can be found in the following Channel NewsAsia podcast:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/listen/heart-matter/singapore-snobbish-tommy-koh-says-confronting-societys-flaws-needed-new-social-compact-2875886

As expected, Professor Koh’s remarks got the chattering classes chattering. His remarks have drawn the ire of the Singapore government’s favourite poodle, the “Fawning Follower,” who is a Polish blogger who calls himself the Critical Spectator.

The Fawning Follower has written a Facebook posting in reply to Professor Koh and has argued that the real snob in this story is not the Singaporean but Professor Koh himself.

 

 Professor Koh is, according to the Artful Arse Kisser, a hypocrite of the highest order because he and his family have made a lot of money from the superb system that Singapore has and is now trying to distance himself from it. He wrote some stuff about how the Scandinavian countries that Professor Koh holds up in high esteem as models of equality are in fact places where everyone is equally miserable and so Professor Koh should spend more time focused on the glories of Singapore’s wealth creation. The Brilliant Bootlicker’s rants can be found on his Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator

 

 

 

As a matter of full disclosure, Professor Koh was my father’s neighbour when he lived in a condominium opposite the Shangri La Valley Wing. Based on that, I can confirm that while Professor Koh is not on the Forbes List of Billionaires, he is in a very comfortable position. As has been pointed out, his sons are also doing well.

According to the “maid’s network” in the building, Professor Koh is a decent man who treated the domestic help well and was generous on special occasions. As my ex-wife (who felt that everyone I knew was a snob) said “The one person in this building who has the most right to be a snob is not snobbish at all.”

Leaving aside Professor Koh’s manner, I will argue that Professor Koh has a point when he talks about snobbery. Whilst I cannot speak for every Singaporean, I have become exceedingly snobbish when it comes to people who think that the worst characteristics in society are virtues and then spend time and effort to expand and glorify the cracks in society.

Unlike the Artful Arse Kisser, I hold a Singapore passport and served national service in a combat unit and combat vocation (155mm Gunner). I have lived in Singapore for nearly 20-years, mostly in an HDB flat. While I am by no means a roaring success (some might call be a total loser), I am not starving or begging on the streets.

As such, I am aware that Singapore measures up well against most places (including the developed economies of North America and Western Europe) in most things. Having said that, I am also aware that Singapore is far from paradise (a fact that one becomes painfully aware of whenever one must lie in a hospital bed). These are the things that need to harp on if one wants to have a decent enough life. Focusing on the praise only increase the complacency of those in power, which in turn produces rot and decay.

When people in power start telling you things like “It’s much worse elsewhere,” you know that you are building a problem because just because its worse elsewhere, it does not mean that it is morally correct and more importantly it doe not mean that there is a problem here that needs solving. If you read what the Artful Arse Kisser writes, you will notice that his underlying argument is “Singapore is heaven – it is worse everywhere else – grovel and thank God you are here and not elsewhere.”

Let us face certain realities. Singapore has issues. We are on paper doing well. Our homes are valued in millions and our per capita GDP is among the highest. The days when the immediate comparison was our neighbours have long since passed. However, despite the enormous paper wealth Singaporeans are supposed to have, we are a miserable lot when compared to many places.

Like Singapore, there are problems in the Nordic countries. Taxes, for example are famously punitive. Sweden and Denmark have had issues integrating migrants. However, contrary to what the Artful Arse Kisser may tell you, the Nordics enjoy one of the best standards of living around and consistently rank among the top of the happiest places on earth as this report from the Straits Times states:

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/finland-is-worlds-happiest-country-afghanistan-ranks-lowest-on-chart ; and

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world

Why do countries that tax you more than half of what you earn rank so highly in happiness indices? Singapore for all its achievements ranks 31 on the happiness list. While we’re in the top 50 of the 197 odd countries in the world, that ranking is pretty bad for a place that is one of the richest and more crime free in the world.

Let us start with the obvious, life in the Nordics is good. Donald Trump summed it up when he complained that only people from s**hole countries wanted to migrate to the US and people from Norway. Well, answer is obvious, people from Norway and the Nordics are happy to be where they are whatever the Artful Arse Kisser may tell you.

To be fair, the Artful Arse Kisser has a point. Wealth is an important factor in society. Wealth is also something that the Nordics have plenty of. Norway’s Sovereign Wealth fund is the world’s largest and best managed. The economies of Sweden, Finland and Denmark are innovative. The Nordics get tech.

How is it such that countries that famously tax the living day lights out of you end up having functioning economies? The truth is tax is invested in the people. While the Nordics have not produced a global top ten university, education systems in all of them rank highly:

https://leverageedu.com/blog/best-education-system-in-the-world/

Parents do not worry about the costs of sending their kids to school. The result being you have a population that is highly educated and curious enough about the world to become innovative.

As well as being educated, the populations of these countries are also healthy and have access to good healthcare:

https://ceoworld.biz/2021/04/27/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2021/

Educated and healthy people tend to produce better work than uneducated and unhealthy people. Whilst the Nordics don’t have a lot of people, the ones they have are productive.

The assumption that critics of “equality” make is that the aim of equality is for everyone to be the same and earn the same and have the same standard of living. This is not accurate. Equality is about ensuring equality of opportunity, and this is what the Nordics have done. Everyone gets the same access to quality education, and everyone gets access to equality healthcare.

Sure, the cost of living in the Nordics is very high that was famously displayed in Drew Binsky’s $10 challenge in Oslo where US$10 was only enough for a cup of coffee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNrPo-DnorI

Wages, are however, noticeably higher. A bus driver in any of the Nordic countries earns around S$5,000 a month. Not enough to create a millionaire but enough to live a comfortable life.

This is not the case in Singapore. We have on average a good system in education and health care, but the range of quality does depend on who you are. In healthcare, you have hospitals that are hotels with healthcare facilities. These places cater to the rich from elsewhere and should your healthcare provider charge you high, the government may step in and sue you for overcharging. By comparison you have clinics that are struggling, and the doctors are effectively qualified pill salesmen. If you are in the government healthcare system and can’t afford to pay – the government might even sue you when you die if your bills are not paid.

For all the talk about our only resource is human, we waste it by focusing it on the elite or the rich and powerful from elsewhere. Sure, things look good on paper but there are too many people who feel that the system caters to everyone else except them.

Our taxes may be lower than the Nordics but too many worry about what happens if they get sick or lose their relatively low paying jobs in their old age because that is their only source of living. If you only look after some of the people, you will inevitably end up having an economy that depends on people from elsewhere because the people you have don’t trust the system to take care of them while they work to serve it.

What’s Really Offensive Here?

 

Right after work, when I noticed that I was copied in an email between Mr. Kumaran Pillai and someone from the Infocomm Media Development Authority (“IMDA’). As mentioned in previous postings, the Independent Singapore does pick up a few of pieces that I publish on my personal blog. The piece that the Independent picked up has the headline “OPINION | The Right Type of Darkie — The Perfectly Electable Prime Minister” and the story can be found at:

https://theindependent.sg/opinion-the-right-type-of-darkie-the-perfectly-electable-prime-minister/

The premise of the article was simple – it was heartening to see so many ethnic minorities in contention for the top job from a political party that has screamed “White Male Dominance” for the last few centuries, and nobody was making it an issue. I did, however, make the point that the ethnic minorities were not just born and bred in the UK but at the elite social strata as one could get without being born into royalty. The only thing Indian about Rishi Sunak other than his name and complexion is his wife’s family. The same was true of Barak Obama who, while a little tanner than most of Middle America was not actually black. Just as Mr. Sunak and Mr. Obama are effectively “Whiter-than-White,” I did argue that Singapore would only have a Non-Chinese Prime Minister if the Non-Chinese was actually more Chinese than the Chinese.

I am fully aware that the term “Darkie” can be offensive to some, the truth is the fact that for all America talked about its “First Black President,” and the UK talks of the possibility of its “First Indian Origin Prime Minister,” the truth is that Mr. Obama and Mr. Sunak are only there because they are the “dark-skinned” people that the “White Majority” societies accept and for that to happen they have to be at the elite. What is true of America and the UK is in many ways true of Singapore.

What I find particularly interesting here is that when the Independent first put this up on their Facebook page, there was a comment from a Caucasian fellow who said that “there were many offensive terms used and the post had to be taken down.” An Indian fellow replied “Why – it’s true.” Unfortunately, both comments have been taken down.

The person from IMDA stated that a member of the public had provided feedback to IMDA that the term “Darkie” was inappropriate. Whilst I had not broken any rules, IMDA did state that the term was “insensitive” to ethnic minorities. In his defense of my piece, Mr. Pillai stated that he as an ethnic minority did not find what I wrote offensive and had himself experienced racism in Singapore.

So, the question here is what exactly is offensive here? Is the term “darkie” offensive or is it the fact that ethnic minorities, particularly those of a darker skin tone have to effectively become “lighter” if they are to make headway in a society where the majority is of a lighter skin tone. Sure, I understand “darkie” can be an insensitive word but let us be honest – that’s what “light” societies see darker skinned people as.

I have had this argument with my mother, who lives in Germany. She has told me that I am too conscious of race or that living in Asia has given me a “chip-on-the-shoulder.” In the Europe she lives in, you are German or French or whatever if your born there, speak the language and hold the passport, regardless of your skin tone.

However, she once got the shock of her life when she came back for a visit and saw how immigration decided to give two people in front of her a hard time. They happened to be black, but the only thing Mum could say to me was “Excuse me – they have French passports.”

In fairness to Singapore, there are some controls on the worst types of behavior. The Singapore Government’s DNA has been programmed to remember the racial riots of our early years and so anyone even thinking of inciting a riot based on racial grievances ends up in jail.

However, that does not mean that racism does not exist. It merely does so in subtle forms and one of it can be found in the way ethnic minorities try to be mainstream at the expense of their ethnic routes. I actually go very upset when an Indian Muslim friend of mine insisted on using a Western name when talking to a Malay girl – For God’s sake he had perfectly good name. I think of the number of Tamil fellows who crack “dark jokes” to fit in and as members of the ethnic majority, we tend to assume that because they are cracking those jokes, we forget to ask ourselves if they are merely trying to be part of us and will they have limits.

I mean I remember kicking a small kid in the school toilet floor because, well I got tired of “Ah So – Mr. Miyagi,” jokes (I did tell them that I was happy to laugh along but the day I told them I wanted them to stop and they didn’t I would have no qualms kicking the crap out of them even at the risk of being expelled for bullying.) Here is a clip by Hassan Minhaj on what it was like growing up as a darker skinned minority migrant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3RyCtbwBDA

 

What is particularly interesting in this clip is that Mr. Minhaj mentions that his dad, who was born in India was willing to take a certain amount of racial abuse because he believed this was the “tax” he had to pay for the privilege of being in the USA. However, Mr. Minhaj says, he’s from a generation he was born and bred in America and the values of “equality” were in him. Hence, he was less tolerant of racial abuse.

So, the question that we should ask ourselves is whether this something we are going to see here. There is a generation of ethnic minorities that will suck up things like the “dark” jokes or the implicit understanding that the Prime Minister can only be Chinese because it’s a small price to pay for the social stability that we enjoy.

However, what do the generations who do not have memories of the racial riots of the 60s feel? Yes, they can laugh at the dark jokes as their parents did, but will they also accept that someone from their community having an equal chance of the top jobs without having to become more like the majority than the majority?

In a way, the recent influx of migrants (since 2004) has delayed our need to ask this question. We now have local born Chinese versus Mainland Chinese. In Singapore, “Indian” automatically meant Tamil – this is no longer the case (which was unfortunately brought home to me at press conference when our 6^th President refused to give Tamil soundbites to Vasnatham because it was an “Indian” and not a “Tamil” event.) Have a look at the following clip from Hassan Minhaj:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_FE78X-qdY

Delaying real unity has delayed having to question to the status quo of the 1960s. Will that, however, be something that can be done forever?

It Takes Us Just an Hour to Look at a Single Page

 

I have just had the most unproductive of days. Was tasked to que up at DBS Marina Bay Financial Centre Branch. The objective was to get a banker’s guarantee form signed and handed over to the bank. The experience started at 11am. As a matter of full disclosure, DBS is the bank I operate out of.

 

 Got this Number at 11am.

 

 This was the number at closing time (4pm).

The mission, in military speak was a total failure because, well, the customer was still waiting for service as the bank was closing. To be fair to the bank, they continued to serve customers even after official closing hours. You could say that at least the bank was behaving like a restaurant that holds its doors open for that customer that continues to sit there well beyond last order.

However, unlike restaurants, this is a bank where people were obliged to sit there and wait. No one came round to offer refreshments and what became very clear that whilst the staff on the floor were grossly overworked, they were also underpowered to their jobs. You could count the number of times an individual had to run to the backroom to check things. I went to see a manager about an issue, which she then tried to pass onto another staff who was dealing with an irate customer who had been waiting for an hour and a half. When I finally managed to see a member of staff who could answer my questions, she proceeded to run into the backroom for 20 over minutes.

Again, I understand that banking can be a bureaucratic process and when it comes to compliance, one should be careful. However, why does the person facing the customer need to run to a backroom to check on things for every single enquiry? If you calculate the time it took for the front stuff to rush to the backroom and back, you will probably find that it would probably add up to around 12 hours or more.

In fairness to DBS, the place was crowded. It was as if people felt that in the post lockdown world, people were releasing their pent-up frustration of not being able to see their bankers.

 

 People Still Coming at Closing Time

Around a month ago, I had to visit the OCBC Main Branch on Chulia Street to buy a banker’s draft for a client. As a matter of full disclosure, OCBC is the bank that holds my mortgage.

The place was not what you would call crowded. So, the bank decided that it would follow suite and a huge counter designed for 10 had only three manning the counter. Well, I rephrase, it was actually two, the third person was a “supervisor” working very hard looking over the shoulder of the other two.

 

 Big Counter Few People

In the meantime, the rest of the customer service staff were very busy looking at each other, probably discussing the results of lunch. Which was far more than what I had because I was prancing around from 11.45 all the way to 15.30. It took nearly found hours for a 10-minute transaction.   

 

 What Did You Have for Lunch Today?

You know, I get that things may not be as efficient as we may like them to be. I do get that sometimes there is give and take. But seriously, why must customers wait for corporates to take their own sweet time to do simple things. There is no reason for banks to be short staffed (You tell me a construction site cannot hire locals I can understand – but a bank?). We have so many technologies to make things so much easier. I think of a former client who has a product that can analyse bank statements in a matter of seconds and another product that automatesmaking entries into accounting ledgers. Sure, I get that its good to have old fashioned skills but why insist on doing things by hand when a machine can do it faster and dare, I say better.

Processes need to be redesigned around the customer. I think of Seafirst bank (Now Bank of America), which was so cock sure of its service that it offers five dollars for anyone who had to wait more than five minutes, and this was in the early nineties when you laughed at people with mobile phones for being pretentious and the internet was only a Geeks wet dream.

Why can’t our local banks that are trying to be “world-class” and Singapore trying to be a “financial hub” take leaf from a bank in Washington State and challenges themselves in making life better for the people they are taking money from.

They Help Each Other – When One of Us Succeeds – the Rest of Us Snipe at Him

 

It is not often that you get two sides of an issue brought to you over the weekend. However, I got lucky this weekend when I got a copy of my Aunty Terresa’s Book “The Interpreter’s Daughter,” which tells the story of a maternal great grandaunt and in between starting on my aunt’s book, I managed to watch the Bollywood biopic “Thackery,” which tells the story of Mr. Bal Thackery, the founder of the Shiv Sena Party, which is a well known regionalist, hard-right Hindu party based out of Mumbai.

https://www.straitstimes.com/life/arts/book-review-the-interpreters-daughter-is-a-moving-harrowing-family-memoir

 

 Copyright – The Straits Times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqpl_sAcQF8

 

While my aunt’s book is primarily about a character from my maternal family, it also delves into a certain period of Singapore’s history (yes, Singapore has history before Lee Kuan Yew and his gang took over a functioning port city). The story effectively begins with my great-great-grandfather and his migration from China to Singapore. It helps explain what the man was escaping, his journey to Singapore (in a cramped Junk where he was not allowed to go on board the deck) and his life in Singapore. A man from that era, who grew up speaking only Cantonese, ended up learning English and becoming a court interpreter. Sure, its not a great “rags-to-riches” story in as much as he never made the fortunes that gets people excited but it is nevertheless and impressive success story. Think about it – he was educated in the Chinese context, came to a foreign land, and realised he needed to go through the educational process again to survive in his new home and he did this in the early 1900s. How many of us in the 2020s are willing to go back to school again – I for one have resisted going to accounting school despite my boss’s pleas?

I like to think that this section of my family history is not unique to me. I believe that most of us have had ancestors who moved from the so called “motherland” of China (since most of us are of Chinese descent) to escape poverty and built a life here.

Anyway, the key point made in the book is the fact that back in those days, nobody migrated to a place unless they knew people who could help them get started in the new place. If you think about it, the complaint about foreigners “helping each other” is not exactly new – our ancestors helped each other because this was basic survival.

The movie Thackery makes the same point from a different perspective. Mr. Thackery was a well-known regionalist who felt that native Marathi’s were being screwed out of opportunities in the state of Maharashtra and his movement had the initial aim of fighting for the rights of Marathi’s against the ‘foreigners” who had migrated to the state, and he believed with screwing the locals out of the jobs and culture. There is a scene where he brings a group of thugs over to force a cinema owner to take down the screening of the film in Hindi and replace it with a film in Marathi.

For the record, I detest regionalist and nationalist politics. I believe that the “us-versus-them” rhetoric is a convenient distraction that demagogues use to make those of simple intelligence get emotionally distracted from the actual issues that nobody wants to talk about. Although I am far away from being a winner of the globalist system, I refuse to believe that it is the fault of my Pinoy and Indian friends that I have not climbed the corporate ladder.

However, whilst I detest Mr. Thackery’s politics, I believe that he does have a few valid points that need to be considered. One of them comes from the early part of the movie when he says that the South Indians in Mumbai have helped each other. When one opens a restaurant, he will see to it that other South Indians have jobs, and he becomes a celebrated hero for succeeding. By contrast, Mr. Thackery states that when a local Marathi succeeds, the rest of them will snipe in bitterness and jealousy.”

Both the movie and the book talked about a situation in the last century that seems to be relevant today. Read through enough forums in cyberspace and you will notice that there’s a common complaint – the people from elsewhere are helping their own kind at the expense of Singaporeans, even if the “own kind” is less qualified than the local.

I get that people are upset. However, here is the question – what are we doing about the situation other than complaining in cyberspace? A lot of people think the government needs to clamp down on the entry of foreigners and Leong Mun Wai of the PSP famously complained that Mr Piyush Gupta’s presence as CEO of DBS was somehow a slap in the face of Singapore (that slap was delivered long before Mr. Gupta took the job, when DBS proudly announced they were hiring John Olds, a White American with even less qualifications to run a bank than Mr. Gupta).

The reality is that the government will not do anything about the situation other than tighten up visa requirements before an election or perhaps talk a lot about enforcing rules on foreign labour. As things stand the government is also likely to lose its near absolute majority for the foreseeable future. The GLC section of the economy will prefer to hire a foreign multinational, where Singaporeans are inevitably subordinate to London or New York than to give it to local Singaporean entrepreneurs making the decisions in Singapore – I think of the famous line in Jack Neo’s “I Not Stupid” – “Ang Moh’s idea is always special, I will pay more for Ang Moh’s idea.”

The solution for Singaporeans must be ground up instead of top down. Singaporeans need to help each other get ahead. Singapore’s business community needs to step up in its hiring of “local” talent and local graduates need to realise that getting a job in a local business is good training.

We need to lose the mindset that Singaporeans deserve less. I remember one of my Malaysian chefs at the Bistrot telling me that I could not insist on equal pay with a Belgium who had done the job before because he is “Ang Moh.” Every “Ang Moh” customer was telling me otherwise, including the Belgium who had done the job (never took the full-time job in the Bistrot). I think of the time I pitched for a job organised by an offshoot of our National University. I was told that I only got the chance to pitch because the Indian born member of the board insisted on it, whilst the local born and bred chairman thought of me as nothing more than “That Blogger.”

We can talk about how great coming from NUS and NTU are but if our businesses do not think much of our local graduates enough to give them the opportunities to grow. It also works the other way, what can our local businesses do if local graduates persist on shunning local employers in favour of foreign companies.

We cannot complain about foreigners helping each other if we will not help each other on our home ground. Unless our born and bred Singaporeans are willing to accept that local born and bred Singaporeans can be as good as anyone else in the world, we will be destined to be subordinate to people from elsewhere.

 

What Does Loving Your Country Look Like?

 

Since National Day has just passed, I thought it might be worthwhile to talk about the topic of patriotism or the love of one’s nation. If you look at the rise of hard right snake oil salesmen that have been popping up all over the place in the last half decade, you will realise that we are living in a time when the term “patriotism” has been sorely abused.

Patriotism or love of the state has always been a virtue for as long as humans have organised themselves into societies. If you look at who becomes a hero, you’ll notice it’s inevitably been people who have sacrificed their individuality and even their lives for the rest of us. We think of the ideal as set out by the late President John F Kennedy who told the young of his era, “Ask not what your country has done for you but what you can do for your country.”

While many of us grew up encouraged to have develop “patriotic” ideals, there has been a trend towards abusing ideal of patriotism. This abuse is best summed up by former US President George W Bush when he said, “You are either with us or against us.” This became most pronounced during the Trump Presidency when everyone was either cheering in delusion or foaming in the mouth whenever his name was mentioned.

As always, whilst America and the rest of the Western World gets stuck in a debate on personalities, Singapore practices a more subtle but probably more effective form of abusing patriotism. The most visible example is over the debate on the death penalty. The activists make one consistent tactical error, which is to write to the rest of the world about Singapore hanging people. Look at the last incident when Sir Richard Branson got involved in airing his views on the death penalty.

It is a tactical error because the government inevitably moves the discussion away from the death penalty and the chap waiting at the gallows to a question of “outsiders versus Singapore,” and suddenly anyone who anti-death penalty gets labelled as “anti-Singaporean.” Hence the guy’s fate is inevitably sealed because, well its no longer about whatever the guy was carrying but Singapore standing up to the rest of the world on a certain political position.

As mentioned in my previous posting, patriotism is an emotion and when an emotion is stirred up, logic and rationality go out the window. I think of the 2005 hanging of Van Tuong Nguyen, an Australian citizen who was caught carrying drugs. There was a lot of diplomatic noise and an Australian politician mentioned something about banning SQ from Australian airports. Speaking as someone who sees himself as educated in the West and rational, my instinct was – we should not only hang the guy but ensure that the Australian High Commissioner witnessed the event. The emotion of sticking the middle finger at the “imperialist” bully when we are trying to apply our laws was strong enough to overcome whatever feelings I might have had towards the death penalty.

This is not the only example of how the debate has shifted from being about issues to being about “us-versus-them.” It has become all too easy to label anyone who disagrees with you as “unpatriotic.” Patriotism is the blanket used to suppress disagreement.

However, as anyone who has had kids will tell you, like and love do not go hand in hand. As I have said to my kid on a few occasions, “I’ll always love you, but I don’t like certain things that you do or believe in.”

 

 What is true of parenting is also true of patriotism. I do not necessarily like everything that goes on in Singapore and I write blog about it a lot. However, that does not mean that I do not have love for my country, which for the record is the only country in the world that I have a legal obligation to defend.

Singapore is my home, and it is the place where I have been trying to raise a family. There are reasons why I chose to do it here and not elsewhere. However, when it comes to the things that I do not like about the place, I express myself and hope that one day someone with the capabilities of bringing about change will do it and make it a better place.

I do not think this feeling is unique to me. There are, as they say distinctions between Singapore the country and the Singapore government. There are distinctions between disagreeing with certain things and wanting to destroy them.

We need to remember this when we look at people like opposition politicians and activist of certain causes. Just because we do not agree with them all the time, it does not mean that they are less patriotic than the rest of us.

This was a point that was ironically brought home to me by a young man who was active in the PAP grassroots. He was talking about Dr. Chee who has been a proverbial punch bag for the powers that be. His argument was that when you look at Dr. Chee and all that he has endured, it is a miracle that he stays and remains active in the political sphere. This is a man who cold easily have packed his bags and moved elsewhere to make a more comfortable living. He has no reason to stay and like the place. Yet he stays because he must clearly believe he’s got something to contribute.

We need to remember this. People who love the country do not have to like everything about it. People who are critical are not necessarily against the system but hoping to make it work for them. Not everyone can be a superscale wage earner but most of us have to live here and make it work for us. If we remember that disagreement is not unpatriotic, we can sit down and discuss the ways to make things better for everyone. However, we can only do that when the people we disagree with feel confident enough that they won’t be labelled “unpatriotic” for holding different views.

Majulah Singapura

 

It was Singapore’s 57^th birthday yesterday (August 9). As always, there was a spectacular parade, which as per the usual was a chance for the military to show off its latest toys (our toys are considered the best in the region) and to perform great feats of marching (A former Canadian army officer described our marching as “perfect”) and there are other feats of song and dance. The evening inevitably ends off with fireworks.

I grew up watching the parade and I guess the parade became even more significant to me when I moved back from the UK to serve national service. This was what you would call my first encounter with “real” Singapore and although I am terrible at drill (I don’t have a sense of rhythm and I have an even worse sense of “marching in a group”), there is something incredibly special about hearing drill commands and watching other people do drill.

However, whilst I find it significant to watch the military portion of the parade, I have felt the need to question the purpose of National Day. In a way, National Day has become something like Valentine’s Day. Why do you need a special day to be reminded to love your country when you should be loving your country every day? Although I try to avoid criticising the parade itself (I know how hard the contingents work to put on a good show), I do question why we need a grand parade to show that we love the country. I, like everyone else holding a little red passport, should feel an emotional connection to the country regardless of whether we have a parade or not.

The issue of “feeling Singaporean” has become especially pertinent in the last two decades. New arrivals from other parts of Asia have gotten many of us to ask ourselves about what our nationality means to us. I have said it many times before, Singapore seems to be the only place better loved by people from elsewhere than the native-born. I live it. My Vietnamese wife thinks Singapore is heaven on earth and spends her days telling me that I need to do more to keep the world’s best government happy (pay more taxes). My daughter, who is naturalised Singaporean, accepts that its easier to travel the world on a Singapore passport when compared to a Vietnamese one, but does not seem to have an emotional connection to the place.

I get why many of our foreign arrivals love the place. As I have often been reminded by people from America and Western Europe – Singapore is clean, green, safe, and rich. What is there not to like? While I see all these things, I ask myself if its possible to be drawn to the place even if it was not all these things.

I cannot explain it, but I feel it, especially when the National Anthem is played. I am part of “gen-x” of the generation born after 1965. I am part of a generation that that has never known Singapore as anything other than an independent sovereign state. The only national anthem I have ever known is “Majulah Singapura.” This was the national anthem that I sung when I went to school. By comparison, my mother, who is a “boomer” sang “God Save the Queen” when she was at school in Singapore (When Singapore was a Crown Colony).

While I am from the generation that has only known “Majulah Singapura” as a national anthem, I am also of the generation where Malay ceased to be part of the common language of the streets. I speak English, which is the working language of Singapore. If push comes to shove, I can communicate in Mandarin and Cantonese (Mandarin being the language our first Prime Minister said defined Chinese and Cantonese being what I spoke to my paternal grandma in). Malay, our national language, has for our Chinese majority society, become the language for drill commands in the army.

So, I have utterly no idea of what “my” national anthem means. I only knew that “Majulah Singapura” only meant “On ward Singapore” when I was well into my thirties. As far as I know, there is an “Onward Singapore” and a reference to “Nanyang” which as far as I know, is the reference to a Chinese majority island in Southeast Asia. Other than that, I have utterly no idea what my national anthem means.

Yet, while I do not know what my national anthem means, I would not want it to be otherwise. While I may not know what the lyrics of “Majulah Singapura” mean, I feel a connection to the very lyrics of the National Anthem. I guess the connection you feel to the nation is not something that can be explained rationally but its part of you. I do not think I am the only one who feels this way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgpggKhTts

 

 

 

I remember there was once a discussion about changing the National Anthem to English. It felt like a violation. As one of my good friends (who is local Tamil) said “My national anthem is in Malay. You change my national anthem over my dead body.” Here’s an English translation of “Majulah Singapura.”

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/singaporean-national-anthem-majulah-singapura-onward-singapore.html

 

 

 I have argued that change is a constant. Cultures change and we should not be afraid of how things evolve. You cannot expect the demographics of Singapore in 2022 to be the same as the demographics in 1965. The aspirations of people in 2022 should have evolved away from the aspirations and needs of 1965.

However, there are certain things that are part of us, and we should accept that too. Majulah Singapura is a part of us. Just as I cannot tell you what the words mean, I can tell you that hearing the national anthem gives me a feeling of belonging to the place. The technocrats need to understand that our social fabric is based on feeing as much as it is on technicalities. Being Singaporean is not something that can be measured but it is something that can be felt.